Years of research on mice proves that scientists can weaken or strengthen particular memories from the brain or outright delete inherited memories, the Guardianreported.

Scientists hope that the new discovery could potentially be used to help those with cognitive decline or post-traumatic stress disorder by removing fearful memories.

“We can use the same approach to selectively manipulate only the pathological fear memory while preserving all other adaptive fear memories which are necessary for our daily lives,” Jun-Hyeong Cho, co-author of the research from the University of California said.

The researchers used those mice to examine the pathways between the amygdala area of the brain responsible for emotional memories and the area that produces particular sounds. They played a series of low- and high-pitched tones that shocked the mice’s feet with electrodes on the high-pitched sounds.

“These mice are special in that we can label or tag specific pathways that convey certain signals to the amygdala, so that we can identify which pathways are really modified as the mice learn to fear a particular sound,” Cho said. “It is like a bundle of phone lines,” he added. “Each phone line conveys certain auditory information to the amygdala.”

The team then discovered it was possible to completely erase fearful or unwanted memories using a technique called optogenetics, while medication has been used for this purpose to remove the negative associations of some memories.

This technique involves using a virus to introduce genes into particular neurons in the brains of the mice that were involved in the “high-pitch” pathways.

Once the virus was inside the cells, the genes resulted in the production of proteins which responded to light, allowing researchers to control the activity of the neurons.

Taking mice with the fearful memories, the team exposed the neurons involved in the “high-pitch” pathway to low-frequency light – an approach which weakens the connections between the brain’s neuron transmitters.

“It permanently erases the fear memory,” Cho said. “We no longer see the relapse of fear.”

‘The fact that you can parcel out these memories and manipulate them in a predictable fashion is remarkable,’ Sumantra Chattarji, an expert on memory at the National Centre for Biological Sciences in Bangalore, India told New Scientist.

‘This was impossible a few years ago.’

In another study from 2015, MIT scientist found that in animals that developed PTSD symptoms following chronic stress and a traumatic event, serotonin promoted the process of memory consolidation. When the researchers blocked the amygdala cells’ interactions with serotonin after trauma, the stressed animals did not develop PTSD symptoms, while blocking serotonin in unstressed animals after trauma had no effect.

Then earlier this year scientist from MIT and a team in Japan discovered how memories were formed simultaneously in the hippocampus and the cortex by watching how memories responded to an electric shock. In other words, one is for the present short-term and the second is for the long-term.

Scientists have also discovered that generations pass on memories to each other.

None of this is new, this is the overt or clear world scientists catching up with the black-budget scientists in bases like s4.

There was a series of CIA mind control programs including BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, MKULTRA, MKSEARCH and MKNAOMI during the ’50s to ’90s. The CIA sought to blank-slate test subjects wiping memories through drugs, electric shock, high-pitched sound and other torture techniques.

Dr. Ewen Cameron was partially backed by the CIA during project MKULTRA and used electrodes to zap the memories from his unwitting patients’ brains during the 1950s. This method of torture was called “psychic driving.”

After horrendous electric shocks, drugs were given to the test subjects to put them into days of prolonged delirious sleep. Cameron would then subject them to audio tapes he made, in which he repeated certain phrases thousands of times, with the hope of producing new personalities within them.

A 2012 lawsuit filed by veterans’ groups, against the CIA and the DOD, refers to Cameron’s methods. The suit also states that two researchers, Dr. Louis West and Dr. Jose Delgado, working together under the early CIA MKULTRA subproject 95, utilized two protocols: brain implants (“stimoceivers”) and RHIC-EDOM (Radio Hypnotic Intracerebral Control-Electronic Dissolution of Memory) to program the minds of victims.

Translation: they sought to bury memories, and implant false memories that never happened.

The CIA ultimately found that stress and sleep deprivation can make people more susceptible to false memories as have other researchers.

Neuroscientists in France implanted false memories into the brains of sleeping mice in 2015. Using electrodes to directly stimulate and record the activity of nerve cells, they created artificial associative memories that persisted while the animals snoozed and then influenced their behavior when they finally woke up. MIT scientist also achieved the same result using mice in a similar experiment prior in 2013.

Meanwhile, Japanese researchers have developed a trick to implant false visions into people’s brains, altering the way they experience the world and potentially even the way they think.

The gap is decreasing from what covert science knows and what overt science knows – or the clear world and the black-budget world of military intelligence minds.

What do you get when you combine behavioural science with big data and use the new Frankenstein hybrid to better influence people’s thoughts, opinions and desires? Why, psychographics of course! Join James today as he delves into the murky world of billionaire hedge fund owners, creepy thought manipulators and the Trump campaign.

In this edition of SPOTM: Ed Sheeran, Britney Spears, Bella Thorne and so much proof that the industry is controlled by people worshipping the one-eye sign.

There are a quite a few articles about Britney Spears on this site. Why? Because she is one of the most obvious cases of Monarch programming in the entertainment business today. Everything about her screams out mind control – even her Instagram account. Here are some images that were posted by Britney (or whoever controls her social media accounts) in the recent weeks. They are 100% drenched in MK symbolism.

A painting of a young girl who has a monarch butterfly on her head while hiding one of her eyes with another butterfly. Pure Monarch programming symbolism.Pretty much the exact symbolism as the image above.Let Monarch programming be your sails…Another butterfly with a caption that creepily alludes to MK programming: “we’re all a little fragile”. These are only a few examples of the many MK-related images on Britney’s Instagram. Take a look at the comments of this image. At least, there’s some VCs out there.

Of course, the one-eye sign popped out everywhere last month, in places that clearly indicate who and what is under elite control.

Music industry darling Ed Sheeran has one eye hidden in Clash Magazine. But wait, maybe it is just a coincidence. He’s too quirky and charming to be doing that kind of stuff.Nope, more intentional one-eye action to let you know who he’s working for. But wait, maybe it’s another coincidence. He’s so down-to-earth.Nope. Industry pawn.Camila Cabello left Fifth Harmony to pursue a solo career. Does that mean that she’s free from elite control? That guitar stuck on her face indicates: NOPE.I particularly dislike it when kids are used to do the one-eye sign. But it happening everywhere around the world. This is an ad for a kids clothing brand in Eastern Europe.

As usual, the one-eye sign was prominently featured on magazine covers all over the world. They’re a constant reminder of who owns this entire industry – yet not many people see it.

The cover of Bazaar Turkey was all about the one-eye sign.Bazaar Australia (yes, the same magazine as above). Another one-eye sign.The cover of Elle Danmark.Oh my gosh… It’s Bella Thorne … with one eye strategically hidden.Vogue Germany featuring the high priestess of the industry. Even she needs to pay tribute to the elite once in a while.Ellie Harrison is becoming somewhat famous in the UK. For this reason, she somewhat needs to hide one eye for no particular reason in professional photoshoots.The original Blade Runner movie came out over 35 years ago. Unfortunately, a whole lot has changed in the entertainment business since then. It is now owned by a very small group of people. This poster for Blade Runner 2049, which features an obvious one-eye sign, reminds us of who owns the movie business.Free A Girl is an “an international organization dedicated to freeing young girls from forced prostitution”. Their latest promotional campaign features young girls wearing masks and unboxing sex toys. These troubling scenes are juxtaposed with even more troubling scenes of young girls being offered to men. While, at face value, the intentions of the ad are good, doesn’t this entire thing actually further the sexualization of children?Is showing girls playing around with big phalluses a good idea? Doesn’t this kind of thing please the very people the organization is supposedly working against? And what’s up with the butterfly masks?

Speaking of the sexualization children, fashion designer Pearl Lowe was heavily criticized for featuring her own 11-year-old daughter in suggestive pictures in order sell clothing. The collection of pics on her website is downright disturbing: Revealing costumes, heavy makeup and, yes, even Beta Kitten symbolism. I’m not even comfortable featuring these pics on here but someone needs to call that crap out.

On the left, the 11-year-old girl is wearing an outfit similar to the uniform of Playboy bunnies in the 1970s. In what situation would a young girl ever wear this?A “sexy” leopard outfit with a matching hat. Pure beta-kitten symbolism. Once again, what child would wear this? Where? When? With Who? I don’t get it. It actually looks like the type of stuff sick people would force children to wear.A dualistic black-and-white pattern used in MK programming. The entire “collection” sends out a sickening vibe.

On May 7th, Emmanuel Macron won the French elections. The next day, several French citizens e-mailed me the same symbolic image which appeared on TV across the world.

Macron’s victory speech with the Louvre’s pyramid perfectly centered in the background, complete with an illuminated apex. Dominique Stezepfandt’s book “François Mitterrand, Grand Architecte de l’Univers” declares that “the pyramid is dedicated to a power described as the Beast in the Book of Revelation (…) The entire structure is based on the number 6.” The official brochure published during construction stated that the pyramid was made of 666 panes. This was later dismissed as an “urban legend” (although the info was printed right in the official brochure).Another pic sent by another reader. Inb4: “ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WERE ROOTING FOR LePEN!?!! SHE’S A FASCIST!”. This site is not about rooting for politicians, it is about symbolism – no matter who’s is power. This is a very symbolic pic.

“Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”

PART ONE

—Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans—

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable.

On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.

When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.

And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion? And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?

Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.

Engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Disease and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the blueprint.

This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.

Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.

Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives. Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.

The individual would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.

Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization. What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.

Among technocrats, the overall vision superseded the glaring need to “remake” individuals who would fit in. It was perfectly all right to re-program the individual.

Other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population.

Essentially, an already-misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.

In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy.

A locomotive is a society? No. That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly bizarre.

Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief. They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories—greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; engineering production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guidance.

If you track down the specifics that sit under these cover stories, you discover a warped system of planning that expresses control over the global population.

The collective utopia turns out to be a sham.

Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.

A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.

Engineering society requires engineering humans.

That is the fatal flaw.

It’s called mind control.

PART TWO

Any genuine artist, any builder of communities, any sane activist, any honorable visionary stands outside technocracy, and is not part of this program.

Instead, his thrust is toward more individual freedom and a more open society with greater decentralization of power.

Decentralization is the key.

The use of technology does not imply living inside its control. The use of technology does not imply that society should be laid out like a giant machine with fitted parts.

Those futurists who have offered “overall plans” for the disposition of society generally ignore or sidestep the issue of who is going to administer the plan. To say this is an error is a vast understatement.

Where is one far-reaching center of power in our world that would run society with a primary concern for the freedom of the individual?

We are looking at an inherent contradiction. All such centers of power are, first and foremost, dedicated to their own survival. And after that, they are dedicated to control of the territory they believe they own. THE INDIVIDUAL is a messy thing that needs to be sidelined or dealt with as a disruptive element.

I speak to those people who understand that the idea of the free, independent, powerful, and creative individual is being sidelined, shelved, sent down the memory hole. This is no accident. This isn’t just a devolutionary trend. Technocrats see this as a necessary action, in order to “clean up” their equation for the civilization they’re building. The individual is a slippery variable that throws a monkey wrench into formulas.

PART THREE

Imagination never dies.

It belongs to the individual. It isn’t property of the group.

It enables solutions that eradicate problems and get out ahead of problems before they raise their heads.

Time and time again, the individual, as he wends his way through life, encounters persons and organizations that consider imagination a negative. In the clearly defined shapes of society, imagination must take a back seat to planning.

Is the individual resistant to such manipulations, or does he give in?

This is the key question.

Does the individual view society as an operation that can potentially lift up individuals and empower them? Or does he give in to the idea that society should create more and more dependent people?

The individual can be a source of spreading freedom, or he can defend the notion that there are an endless number of “entitlements” that must be honored.

Technocracy promotes entitlements as a doorway into the future. Its ultimate entitlement goes this way: you have the right to be re-programmed to believe you have a slot in the future world; we will make this slot as attractive as possible; you will serve the overall good as we engineer it.

That is the fundamental justification for the Welfare State. It’s the justification for a future technocratic policy which will assign citizens energy quotas. A citizen would be permitted to consume a set amount of energy in a given time period. (So-called smart meters are a step in that direction. The meters enable more specific measurements of energy consumption.)

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The recommended books portion comes at the 6:15 mark.
______________________________________________________________________

Source: TheCorbettReport
James Corbett
May 1, 2017

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: Is it possible to mind control an assassin? Is overpopulation hysteria justified? How would a free society cope without police? Find out the answers to these and other listener questions as James gives you a tour of his bookshelf.

Researchers have called for radical new legislation protecting people’s thoughts from being stolen and maybe even deleted.

Biomedical ethicists Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno believe that while rapid advances in neurotechnology have created opportunities in modern medicine, they also present new challenges for human privacy.

Writing in the journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy, the pair have warned that brain-hacking and “hazardous use of medical neurotechnology” could threaten the integrity of our thoughts.

The ethicists wrote: “We suggest that in response to emerging neurotechnology possibilities, the right to mental integrity should not exclusively guarantee protection from mental illness or traumatic injury but also from unauthorised intrusions into a person’s mental wellbeing performed through the use of neurotechnology, especially if such intrusions result in physical or mental harm.”

The proposal sets out four new human rights laws: the right to mental privacy, mental integrity, cognitive liberty and psychological continuity. It is hoped that, in the future, these laws could be used as safeguards preventing people’s brains from being read or stimulated without their consent.

Fear of cognitive intrusion is not paranoia borne out of science fiction, they say.

Last year, the US military successfully tested electrical brain stimulation technology aimed at enhancing the performance of soldiers in high-pressure situations.

In 2011, scientists at the University of California in Berkley used brain scans to recreate scenes of movies participants in the project had already seen beforehand.

Recently, Facebook announced they have set up a research shop known as Building 8, a project designed to develop technology that would allow the social media giant to read users’ minds.

There are currently no laws governing the collection of brain information and Ilenca and Andorno fear “the indiscriminate leakage of brain data across the infosphere”, in the same way as personal information is shared now.

Ienca said: “Neurotechnology featured in famous stories has in some cases already become a reality, while others are inching ever closer, or exist as military and commercial prototypes.

“We need to be prepared to deal with the impact these technologies will have on our personal freedom.”